The Class Struggle
Unfortunately or otherwise, people are prone to believe in the
reality of the things they think ought to be so. This comes of the
cheery optimism which is innate with life itself; and, while it may
sometimes be deplored, it must never be censured, for, as a rule, it
is productive of more good than harm, and of about all the
achievement there is in the world. There are cases where this
optimism has been disastrous, as with the people who lived in
Pompeii during its last quivering days; or with the aristocrats of
the time of Louis XVI, who confidently expected the Deluge to
overwhelm their children, or their children's children, but never
themselves. But there is small likelihood that the case of perverse
optimism here to be considered will end in such disaster, while
there is every reason to believe that the great change now
manifesting itself in society will be as peaceful and orderly in its
culmination as it is in its present development.
Out of their constitutional optimism, and because a class struggle
is an abhorred and dangerous thing, the great American people are
unanimous in asserting that there is no class struggle. And by
"American people" is meant the recognized and authoritative mouth-
pieces of the American people, which are the press, the pulpit, and
the university. The journalists, the preachers, and the professors
are practically of one voice in declaring that there is no such
thing as a class struggle now going on, much less that a class
struggle will ever go on, in the United States. And this
declaration they continually make in the face of a multitude of
facts which impeach, not so much their sincerity, as affirm, rather,
their optimism.
There are two ways of approaching the subject of the class struggle.
The existence of this struggle can be shown theoretically, and it
can be shown actually. For a class struggle to exist in society
there must be, first, a class inequality, a superior class and an
inferior class (as measured by power); and, second, the outlets must
be closed whereby the strength and ferment of the inferior class
have been permitted to escape.
That there are even classes in the United States is vigorously
denied by many; but it is incontrovertible, when a group of
individuals is formed, wherein the members are bound together by
common interests which are peculiarly their interests and not the
interests of individuals outside the group, that such a group is a
class. The owners of capital, with their dependents, form a class
of this nature in the United States; the working people form a
similar class. The interest of the capitalist class, say, in the
matter of income tax, is quite contrary to the interest of the
laboring class; and, VICE VERSA, in the matter of poll-tax.
If between these two classes there be a clear and vital conflict of
interest, all the factors are present which make a class struggle;
but this struggle will lie dormant if the strong and capable members
of the inferior class be permitted to leave that class and join the
ranks of the superior class. The capitalist class and the working
class have existed side by side and for a long time in the United
States; but hitherto all the strong, energetic members of the
working class have been able to rise out of their class and become
owners of capital. They were enabled to do this because an
undeveloped country with an expanding frontier gave equality of
opportunity to all. In the almost lottery-like scramble for the
ownership of vast unowned natural resources, and in the exploitation
of which there was little or no competition of capital, (the capital
itself rising out of the exploitation), the capable, intelligent
member of the working class found a field in which to use his brains
to his own advancement. Instead of being discontented in direct
ratio with his intelligence and ambitions, and of radiating amongst
his fellows a spirit of revolt as capable as he was capable, he left
them to their fate and carved his own way to a place in the superior
class.
But the day of an expanding frontier, of a lottery-like scramble for
the ownership of natural resources, and of the upbuilding of new
industries, is past. Farthest West has been reached, and an immense
volume of surplus capital roams for investment and nips in the bud
the patient efforts of the embryo capitalist to rise through slow
increment from small beginnings. The gateway of opportunity after
opportunity has been closed, and closed for all time. Rockefeller
has shut the door on oil, the American Tobacco Company on tobacco,
and Carnegie on steel. After Carnegie came Morgan, who triple-
locked the door. These doors will not open again, and before them
pause thousands of ambitious young men to read the placard: NO
THOROUGH-FARE.
And day by day more doors are shut, while the ambitious young men
continue to be born. It is they, denied the opportunity to rise
from the working class, who preach revolt to the working class. Had
he been born fifty years later, Andrew Carnegie, the poor Scotch
boy, might have risen to be president of his union, or of a
federation of unions; but that he would never have become the
builder of Homestead and the founder of multitudinous libraries, is
as certain as it is certain that some other man would have developed
the steel industry had Andrew Carnegie never been born.
Theoretically, then, there exist in the United States all the
factors which go to make a class struggle. There are the
capitalists and working classes, the interests of which conflict,
while the working class is no longer being emasculated to the extent
it was in the past by having drawn off from it its best blood and
brains. Its more capable members are no longer able to rise out of
it and leave the great mass leaderless and helpless. They remain to
be its leaders.
But the optimistic mouthpieces of the great American people, who are
themselves deft theoreticians, are not to be convinced by mere
theoretics. So it remains to demonstrate the existence of the class
struggle by a marshalling of the facts.
When nearly two millions of men, finding themselves knit together by
certain interests peculiarly their own, band together in a strong
organization for the aggressive pursuit of those interests, it is
evident that society has within it a hostile and warring class. But
when the interests which this class aggressively pursues conflict
sharply and vitally with the interests of another class, class
antagonism arises and a class struggle is the inevitable result.
One great organization of labor alone has a membership of 1,700,000
in the United States. This is the American Federation of Labor, and
outside of it are many other large organizations. All these men are
banded together for the frank purpose of bettering their condition,
regardless of the harm worked thereby upon all other classes. They
are in open antagonism with the capitalist class, while the
manifestos of their leaders state that the struggle is one which can
never end until the capitalist class is exterminated.
Their leaders will largely deny this last statement, but an
examination of their utterances, their actions, and the situation
will forestall such denial. In the first place, the conflict
between labor and capital is over the division of the join product.
Capital and labor apply themselves to raw material and make it into
a finished product. The difference between the value of the raw
material and the value of the finished product is the value they
have added to it by their joint effort. This added value is,
therefore, their joint product, and it is over the division of this
joint product that the struggle between labor and capital takes
place. Labor takes its share in wages; capital takes its share in
profits. It is patent, if capital took in profits the whole joint
product, that labor would perish. And it is equally patent, if
labor took in wages the whole joint product, that capital would
perish. Yet this last is the very thing labor aspires to do, and
that it will never be content with anything less than the whole
joint product is evidenced by the words of its leaders.
Mr. Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor,
has said: "The workers want more wages; more of the comforts of
life; more leisure; more chance for self-improvement as men, as
trade-unionists, as citizens. THESE WERE THE WANTS OF YESTERDAY;
THEY ARE THE WANTS OF TODAY; THEY WILL BE THE WANTS OF TOMORROW, AND
OF TOMORROW'S MORROW. The struggle may assume new forms, but the
issue is the immemorial one,--an effort of the producers to obtain
an increasing measure of the wealth that flows from their
production."
Mr. Henry White, secretary of the United Garment Workers of America
and a member of the Industrial Committee of the National Civic
Federation, speaking of the National Civic Federation soon after its
inception, said: "To fall into one another's arms, to avow
friendship, to express regret at the injury which has been done,
would not alter the facts of the situation. Workingmen will
continue to demand more pay, and the employer will naturally oppose
them. The readiness and ability of the workmen to fight will, as
usual, largely determine the amount of their wages or their share in
the product. . . But when it comes to dividing the proceeds, there
is the rub. We can also agree that the larger the product through
the employment of labor-saving methods the better, as there will be
more to be divided, but again the question of the division. . . . A
Conciliation Committee, having the confidence of the community, and
composed of men possessing practical knowledge of industrial
affairs, can therefore aid in mitigating this antagonism, in
preventing avoidable conflicts, in bringing about a TRUCE; I use the
word 'truce' because understandings can only be temporary."
Here is a man who might have owned cattle on a thousand hills, been
a lumber baron or a railroad king, had he been born a few years
sooner. As it is, he remains in his class, is secretary of the
United Garment Workers of America, and is so thoroughly saturated
with the class struggle that he speaks of the dispute between
capital and labor in terms of war,--workmen FIGHT with employers; it
is possible to avoid some CONFLICTS; in certain cases TRUCES may be,
for the time being, effected.
Man being man and a great deal short of the angels, the quarrel over
the division of the joint product is irreconcilable. For the last
twenty years in the United States, there has been an average of over
a thousand strikes per year; and year by year these strikes increase
in magnitude, and the front of the labor army grows more imposing.
And it is a class struggle, pure and simple. Labor as a class is
fighting with capital as a class.
Workingmen will continue to demand more pay, and employers will
continue to oppose them. This is the key-note to LAISSEZ FAIRE,--
everybody for himself and devil take the hindmost. It is upon this
that the rampant individualist bases his individualism. It is the
let-alone policy, the struggle for existence, which strengthens the
strong, destroys the weak, and makes a finer and more capable breed
of men. But the individual has passed away and the group has come,
for better or worse, and the struggle has become, not a struggle
between individuals, but a struggle between groups. So the query
rises: Has the individualist never speculated upon the labor group
becoming strong enough to destroy the capitalist group, and take to
itself and run for itself the machinery of industry? And, further,
has the individualist never speculated upon this being still a
triumphant expression of individualism,--of group individualism,--if
the confusion of terms may be permitted?
But the facts of the class struggle are deeper and more significant
than have so far been presented. A million or so of workmen may
organize for the pursuit of interests which engender class
antagonism and strife, and at the same time be unconscious of what
is engendered. But when a million or so of workmen show
unmistakable signs of being conscious of their class,--of being, in
short, class conscious,--then the situation grows serious. The
uncompromising and terrible hatred of the trade-unionist for a scab
is the hatred of a class for a traitor to that class,--while the
hatred of a trade-unionist for the militia is the hatred of a class
for a weapon wielded by the class with which it is fighting. No
workman can be true to his class and at the same time be a member of
the militia: this is the dictum of the labor leaders.
In the town of the writer, the good citizens, when they get up a
Fourth of July parade and invite the labor unions to participate,
are informed by the unions that they will not march in the parade if
the militia marches. Article 8 of the constitution of the Painters'
and Decorators' Union of Schenectady provides that a member must not
be a "militiaman, special police officer, or deputy marshal in the
employ of corporations or individuals during strikes, lockouts, or
other labor difficulties, and any member occupying any of the above
positions will be debarred from membership." Mr. William Potter was
a member of this union and a member of the National Guard. As a
result, because he obeyed the order of the Governor when his company
was ordered out to suppress rioting, he was expelled from his union.
Also his union demanded his employers, Shafer & Barry, to discharge
him from their service. This they complied with, rather than face
the threatened strike.
Mr. Robert L. Walker, first lieutenant of the Light Guards, a New
Haven militia company, recently resigned. His reason was, that he
was a member of the Car Builders' Union, and that the two
organizations were antagonistic to each other. During a New Orleans
street-car strike not long ago, a whole company of militia, called
out to protect non-union men, resigned in a body. Mr. John
Mulholland, president of the International Association of Allied
Metal Mechanics, has stated that he does not want the members to
join the militia. The Local Trades' Assembly of Syracuse, New York,
has passed a resolution, by unanimous vote, requiring union men who
are members of the National Guard to resign, under pain of
expulsion, from the unions. The Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers'
Association has incorporated in its constitution an amendment
excluding from membership in its organization "any person a member
of the regular army, or of the State militia or naval reserve." The
Illinois State Federation of Labor, at a recent convention, passed
without a dissenting vote a resolution declaring that membership in
military organizations is a violation of labor union obligations,
and requesting all union men to withdraw from the militia. The
president of the Federation, Mr. Albert Young, declared that the
militia was a menace not only to unions, but to all workers
throughout the country.
These instances may be multiplied a thousand fold. The union
workmen are becoming conscious of their class, and of the struggle
their class is waging with the capitalist class. To be a member of
the militia is to be a traitor to the union, for the militia is a
weapon wielded by the employers to crush the workers in the struggle
between the warring groups.
Another interesting, and even more pregnant, phase of the class
struggle is the political aspect of it as displayed by the
socialists. Five men, standing together, may perform prodigies; 500
men, marching as marched the historic Five Hundred of Marseilles,
may sack a palace and destroy a king; while 500,000 men,
passionately preaching the propaganda of a class struggle, waging a
class struggle along political lines, and backed by the moral and
intellectual support of 10,000,000 more men of like convictions
throughout the world, may come pretty close to realizing a class
struggle in these United States of ours.
In 1900 these men cast 150,000 votes; two years later, in 1902, they
cast 300,000 votes; and in 1904 they cast 450,000. They have behind
them a most imposing philosophic and scientific literature; they own
illustrated magazines and reviews, high in quality, dignity, and
restraint; they possess countless daily and weekly papers which
circulate throughout the land, and single papers which have
subscribers by the hundreds of thousands; and they literally swamp
the working classes in a vast sea of tracts and pamphlets. No
political party in the United States, no church organization nor
mission effort, has as indefatigable workers as has the socialist
party. They multiply themselves, know of no effort nor sacrifice
too great to make for the Cause; and "Cause," with them, is spelled
out in capitals. They work for it with a religious zeal, and would
die for it with a willingness similar to that of the Christian
martyrs.
These men are preaching an uncompromising and deadly class struggle.
In fact, they are organized upon the basis of a class struggle.
"The history of society," they say, "is a history of class
struggles. Patrician struggled with plebeian in early Rome; the
king and the burghers, with the nobles in the Middle Ages; later on,
the king and the nobles with the bourgeoisie; and today the struggle
is on between the triumphant bourgeoisie and the rising proletariat.
By 'proletariat' is meant the class of people without capital which
sells its labor for a living.
"That the proletariat shall conquer," (mark the note of fatalism),
"is as certain as the rising sun. Just as the bourgeoisie of the
eighteenth century wanted democracy applied to politics, so the
proletariat of the twentieth century wants democracy applied to
industry. As the bourgeoisie complained against the government
being run by and for the nobles, so the proletariat complains
against the government and industry being run by and for the
bourgeoisie; and so, following in the footsteps of its predecessor,
the proletariat will possess itself of the government, apply
democracy to industry, abolish wages, which are merely legalized
robbery, and run the business of the country in its own interest."
"Their aim," they say, "is to organize the working class, and those
in sympathy with it, into a political party, with the object of
conquering the powers of government and of using them for the
purpose of transforming the present system of private ownership of
the means of production and distribution into collective ownership
by the entire people."
Briefly stated, this is the battle plan of these 450,000 men who
call themselves "socialists." And, in the face of the existence of
such an aggressive group of men, a class struggle cannot very well
be denied by the optimistic Americans who say: "A class struggle is
monstrous. Sir, there is no class struggle." The class struggle is
here, and the optimistic American had better gird himself for the
fray and put a stop to it, rather than sit idly declaiming that what
ought not to be is not, and never will be.
But the socialists, fanatics and dreamers though they may well be,
betray a foresight and insight, and a genius for organization, which
put to shame the class with which they are openly at war. Failing
of rapid success in waging a sheer political propaganda, and finding
that they were alienating the most intelligent and most easily
organized portion of the voters, the socialists lessoned from the
experience and turned their energies upon the trade-union movement.
To win the trade unions was well-nigh to win the war, and recent
events show that they have done far more winning in this direction
than have the capitalists.
Instead of antagonizing the unions, which had been their previous
policy, the socialists proceeded to conciliate the unions. "Let
every good socialist join the union of his trade," the edict went
forth. "Bore from within and capture the trade-union movement."
And this policy, only several years old, has reaped fruits far
beyond their fondest expectations. Today the great labor unions are
honeycombed with socialists, "boring from within," as they
picturesquely term their undermining labor. At work and at play, at
business meeting and council, their insidious propaganda goes on.
At the shoulder of the trade-unionist is the socialist, sympathizing
with him, aiding him with head and hand, suggesting--perpetually
suggesting--the necessity for political action. As the JOURNAL, of
Lansing, Michigan, a republican paper, has remarked: "The
socialists in the labor unions are tireless workers. They are
sincere, energetic, and self-sacrificing. . . . They stick to the
union and work all the while, thus making a showing which, reckoned
by ordinary standards, is out of all proportion to their numbers.
Their cause is growing among union laborers, and their long fight,
intended to turn the Federation into a political organization, is
likely to win."
They miss no opportunity of driving home the necessity for political
action, the necessity for capturing the political machinery of
society whereby they may master society. As an instance of this is
the avidity with which the American socialists seized upon the
famous Taft-Vale Decision in England, which was to the effect that
an unincorporated union could be sued and its treasury rifled by
process of law. Throughout the United States, the socialists
pointed the moral in similar fashion to the way it was pointed by
the Social-Democratic Herald, which advised the trade-unionists, in
view of the decision, to stop trying to fight capital with money,
which they lacked, and to begin fighting with the ballot, which was
their strongest weapon.
Night and day, tireless and unrelenting, they labor at their self-
imposed task of undermining society. Mr. M. G. Cunniff, who lately
made an intimate study of trade-unionism, says: "All through the
unions socialism filters. Almost every other man is a socialist,
preaching that unionism is but a makeshift." "Malthus be damned,"
they told him, "for the good time was coming when every man should
be able to rear his family in comfort." In one union, with two
thousand members, Mr. Cunniff found every man a socialist, and from
his experiences Mr. Cunniff was forced to confess, "I lived in a
world that showed our industrial life a-tremble from beneath with a
never-ceasing ferment."
The socialists have already captured the Western Federation of
Miners, the Western Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union, and the
Patternmakers' National Association. The Western Federation of
Miners, at a recent convention, declared: "The strike has failed to
secure to the working classes their liberty; we therefore call upon
the workers to strike as one man for their liberties at the ballot
box. . . . We put ourselves on record as committed to the programme
of independent political action. . . . We indorse the platform of
the socialist party, and accept it as the declaration of principles
of our organization. We call upon our members as individuals to
commence immediately the organization of the socialist movement in
their respective towns and states, and to cooperate in every way for
the furtherance of the principles of socialism and of the socialist
party. In states where the socialist party has not perfected its
organization, we advise that every assistance be given by our
members to that end. . . . We therefore call for organizers, capable
and well-versed in the whole programme of the labor movement, to be
sent into each state to preach the necessity of organization on the
political as well as on the economic field."
The capitalist class has a glimmering consciousness of the class
struggle which is shaping itself in the midst of society; but the
capitalists, as a class, seem to lack the ability for organizing,
for coming together, such as is possessed by the working class. No
American capitalist ever aids an English capitalist in the common
fight, while workmen have formed international unions, the
socialists a world-wide international organization, and on all sides
space and race are bridged in the effort to achieve solidarity.
Resolutions of sympathy, and, fully as important, donations of
money, pass back and forth across the sea to wherever labor is
fighting its pitched battles.
For divers reasons, the capitalist class lacks this cohesion or
solidarity, chief among which is the optimism bred of past success.
And, again, the capitalist class is divided; it has within itself a
class struggle of no mean proportions, which tends to irritate and
harass it and to confuse the situation. The small capitalist and
the large capitalist are grappled with each other, struggling over
what Achille Loria calls the "bi-partition of the revenues." Such a
struggle, though not precisely analogous, was waged between the
landlords and manufacturers of England when the one brought about
the passage of the Factory Acts and the other the abolition of the
Corn Laws.
Here and there, however, certain members of the capitalist class see
clearly the cleavage in society along which the struggle is
beginning to show itself, while the press and magazines are
beginning to raise an occasional and troubled voice. Two leagues of
class-conscious capitalists have been formed for the purpose of
carrying on their side of the struggle. Like the socialists, they
do not mince matters, but state boldly and plainly that they are
fighting to subjugate the opposing class. It is the barons against
the commons. One of these leagues, the National Association of
Manufacturers, is stopping short of nothing in what it conceives to
be a life-and-death struggle. Mr. D. M. Parry, who is the president
of the league, as well as president of the National Metal Trades'
Association, is leaving no stone unturned in what he feels to be a
desperate effort to organize his class. He has issued the call to
arms in terms everything but ambiguous: "THERE IS STILL TIME IN THE
UNITED STALES TO HEAD OFF THE SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMME, WHICH,
UNRESTRAINED, IS SURE TO WRECK OUR COUNTRY."
As he says, the work is for "federating employers in order that we
may meet with a united front all issues that affect us. We must
come to this sooner or later. . . . The work immediately before the
National Association of Manufacturers is, first, KEEP THE VICIOUS
EIGHT-HOUR BILL OFF THE BOOKS; second, to DESTROY THE ANTI-
INJUNCTION BILL, which wrests your business from you and places it
in the hands of your employees; third, to secure the PASSAGE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY BILL; the latter would go
through with a rush were it not for the hectoring opposition of
Organized Labor." By this department, he further says, "business
interests would have direct and sympathetic representation at
Washington."
In a later letter, issued broadcast to the capitalists outside the
League, President Parry points out the success which is already
beginning to attend the efforts of the League at Washington. "We
have contributed more than any other influence to the quick passage
of the new Department of Commerce Bill. It is said that the
activities of this office are numerous and satisfactory; but of that
I must not say too much--or anything. . . . At Washington the
Association is not represented too much, either directly or
indirectly. Sometimes it is known in a most powerful way that it is
represented vigorously and unitedly. Sometimes it is not known that
it is represented at all."
The second class-conscious capitalist organization is called the
National Economic League. It likewise manifests the frankness of
men who do not dilly-dally with terms, but who say what they mean,
and who mean to settle down to a long, hard fight. Their letter of
invitation to prospective members opens boldly. "We beg to inform
you that the National Economic League will render its services in an
impartial educational movement TO OPPOSE SOCIALISM AND CLASS
HATRED." Among its class-conscious members, men who recognize that
the opening guns of the class struggle have been fired, may be
instanced the following names: Hon. Lyman J. Gage, Ex-Secretary U.
S. Treasury; Hon. Thomas Jefferson Coolidge, Ex-Minister to France;
Rev. Henry C. Potter, Bishop New York Diocese; Hon. John D. Long,
Ex-Secretary U. S. Navy; Hon. Levi P. Morton, Ex-Vice President
United States; Henry Clews; John F. Dryden, President Prudential
Life Insurance Co.; John A. McCall, President New York Life
Insurance Co.; J. L. Greatsinger, President Brooklyn Rapid Transit
Co.; the shipbuilding firm of William Cramp & Sons, the Southern
Railway system, and the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway
Company.
Instances of the troubled editorial voice have not been rare during
the last several years. There were many cries from the press during
the last days of the anthracite coal strike that the mine owners, by
their stubbornness, were sowing the regrettable seeds of socialism.
The World's Work for December, 1902, said: "The next significant
fact is the recommendation by the Illinois State Federation of Labor
that all members of labor unions who are also members of the state
militia shall resign from the militia. This proposition has been
favorably regarded by some other labor organizations. It has done
more than any other single recent declaration or action to cause a
public distrust of such unions as favor it. IT HINTS OF A CLASS
SEPARATION THAT IN TURN HINTS OF ANARCHY."
The OUTLOOK, February 14, 1903, in reference to the rioting at
Waterbury, remarks, "That all this disorder should have occurred in
a city of the character and intelligence of Waterbury indicates that
the industrial war spirit is by no means confined to the immigrant
or ignorant working classes."
That President Roosevelt has smelt the smoke from the firing line of
the class struggle is evidenced by his words, "Above all we need to
remember that any kind of CLASS ANIMOSITY IN THE POLITICAL WORLD is,
if possible, even more destructive to national welfare than
sectional, race, or religious animosity." The chief thing to be
noted here is President Roosevelt's tacit recognition of class
animosity in the industrial world, and his fear, which language
cannot portray stronger, that this class animosity may spread to the
political world. Yet this is the very policy which the socialists
have announced in their declaration of war against present-day
society--to capture the political machinery of society and by that
machinery destroy present-day society.
The New York Independent for February 12, 1903, recognized without
qualification the class struggle. "It is impossible fairly to pass
upon the methods of labor unions, or to devise plans for remedying
their abuses, until it is recognized, to begin with, that unions are
based upon class antagonism and that their policies are dictated by
the necessities of social warfare. A strike is a rebellion against
the owners of property. The rights of property are protected by
government. And a strike, under certain provocation, may extend as
far as did the general strike in Belgium a few years since, when
practically the entire wage-earning population stopped work in order
to force political concessions from the property-owning classes.
This is an extreme case, but it brings out vividly the real nature
of labor organization as a species of warfare whose object is the
coercion of one class by another class."
It has been shown, theoretically and actually, that there is a class
struggle in the United States. The quarrel over the division of the
joint product is irreconcilable. The working class is no longer
losing its strongest and most capable members. These men, denied
room for their ambition in the capitalist ranks, remain to be the
leaders of the workers, to spur them to discontent, to make them
conscious of their class, to lead them to revolt.
This revolt, appearing spontaneously all over the industrial field
in the form of demands for an increased share of the joint product,
is being carefully and shrewdly shaped for a political assault upon
society. The leaders, with the carelessness of fatalists, do not
hesitate for an instant to publish their intentions to the world.
They intend to direct the labor revolt to the capture of the
political machinery of society. With the political machinery once
in their hands, which will also give them the control of the police,
the army, the navy, and the courts, they will confiscate, with or
without remuneration, all the possessions of the capitalist class
which are used in the production and distribution of the necessaries
and luxuries of life. By this, they mean to apply the law of
eminent domain to the land, and to extend the law of eminent domain
till it embraces the mines, the factories, the railroads, and the
ocean carriers. In short, they intend to destroy present-day
society, which they contend is run in the interest of another class,
and from the materials to construct a new society, which will be run
in their interest.
On the other hand, the capitalist class is beginning to grow
conscious of itself and of the struggle which is being waged. It is
already forming offensive and defensive leagues, while some of the
most prominent figures in the nation are preparing to lead it in the
attack upon socialism.
The question to be solved is not one of Malthusianism, "projected
efficiency," nor ethics. It is a question of might. Whichever
class is to win, will win by virtue of superior strength; for the
workers are beginning to say, as they said to Mr. Cunniff, "Malthus
be damned." In their own minds they find no sanction for continuing
the individual struggle for the survival of the fittest. As Mr.
Gompers has said, they want more, and more, and more. The ethical
import of Mr. Kidd's plan of the present generation putting up with
less in order that race efficiency may be projected into a remote
future, has no bearing upon their actions. They refuse to be the
"glad perishers" so glowingly described by Nietzsche.
It remains to be seen how promptly the capitalist class will respond
to the call to arms. Upon its promptness rests its existence, for
if it sits idly by, soothfully proclaiming that what ought not to be
cannot be, it will find the roof beams crashing about its head. The
capitalist class is in the numerical minority, and bids fair to be
outvoted if it does not put a stop to the vast propaganda being
waged by its enemy. It is no longer a question of whether or not
there is a class struggle. The question now is, what will be the
outcome of the class struggle?
-THE END-
Jack London's speech: The Class Struggle
GO TO TOP OF SCREEN
